muppetfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Grauman's Chinese Theatre
Disney's version I was at Hollywood Studios in Florida last week, and saw a lot of Muppet Show guest stars in the cement. I didn't bother keeping count because I figured I could find a list online. Except, now I can't. Does anyone know where I can find such a list? —Scott (message me) 04:15, November 29, 2011 (UTC) :Do they have a copy of the whole thing? Here's the official list of the real one. -- Ken (talk) 06:58, November 29, 2011 (UTC) ::No, I mean the one at Hollywood Studios in Florida. —Scott (message me) 07:00, November 29, 2011 (UTC) :::Hmm, looking around, they keep saying it's a full-scale reproduction, but apparently the footprints are different. Some people are in one, but not the other. I'm curious who's in both, and if they just copied them, or if the stars made a new set. I found images for Pat Boone and Cyd Charisse, whose Disney World prints are dated 1989, and neither of them are in the real one. This sounds like something that hardcore Disney people would know. I wonder if the Disney Archives could help? -- Ken (talk) 07:54, November 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. The celebrities in Florida aren't copies of the ones in California. For example, Florida has Jim Henson, whereas California does not. I figured a Disney parks fan site would have them all listed, but none of them seem to have it. —Scott (message me) 16:53, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Found a list! -- Zanimum 18:34, December 3, 2011 (UTC) :That's what I'm looking for -- thanks! —Scott (message me) 18:46, December 3, 2011 (UTC) Connections I've been looking at some of the Connections lists today, and noticing that we're including quite a few names where the connection is just a Reference, rather than actual interaction between the celebrity and the Muppets/Henson. This list has the clearest examples -- it lists Abbott and Costello, Humphrey Bogart, Donald Duck, Nelson Eddy, Cary Grant, Jack Lemmon, Groucho Marx, Jeanette MacDonald, Carmen Miranda, Daniel Radcliffe, Ginger Rogers, Frank Sinatra, Meryl Streep and Rudy Vallee. None of them have worked with the Muppets, and a couple of them actually died before the Muppets existed. My understanding of the "Connections" game that we play is that we're tracking people who have worked with the Muppets. There's a long list of celebrities who have interacted with Muppet/Henson stuff, and it's fun to see how they hook up with other bits of the Muppet universe. But there's an even bigger list of celebrities who have been parodied, referenced or just name-dropped... and if we include those in our "Connections" lists, then it starts to be less meaningful (and in my opinion, less fun). On this list, we don't even have a page for Daniel Radcliffe -- that link just goes to Harry Potter, the role that Radcliffe is most associated with. So -- I love the Connections stuff, but I think it's only fun if we "play fair". Nate and Andrew, I know you guys will have a lot to say about this... What do you think? -- Danny (talk) 20:15, March 8, 2010 (UTC) :I noticed you working on the pages today, and was going to say something, and this is the perfect time to explain myself. The pages (for the most part) where you removed connections weren't really connections. I had specifically worded them them to not say anything about connections, but rather (in the case of this article) "Footprints", denoting individuals with Footprints at the Theatre. Same thing with American Academy of Dramatic Arts, which listed "Alumni," Stage Deli has "Celebrities mentioned in menu" and Inside the Actors Studio listed "Celebrity Guests". None of them were meant to be the same as "connections", but I admit it was just me being tricky in my wording. I understand its a slippery slope too, so let's see what Andrew has to say about it. I cannot say anything for the Academy Award winners page though. That is an article specifically meant as a connections list, so folks like Ms. Streep and Frank Sinatra do not belong on it. :I also admit that I thought Meryl Streep had a direct connection, so I'm guilty of adding her to pages. I just only now realized that I was on crack when I thought that. -- Nate (talk) 20:41, March 8, 2010 (UTC) ::Hmm. I kind of think Grauman's and a deli menu are areas where anyone we have a page for works, since they're not really productions, and the lists are kind of wacky trimming anyway (for the deli definitely) but ''Inside the Actors Studio is too much. It's like the period when The Daily Show (or was it The Colbert Report?) listed Benjamin Franklin as a guest because someone impersonated him. Even with the heading "Celebrity Guests," it's a regular connections lis (i.e. shared cast members). So definite no to those from me. For the other two, I think they're fun and could be kept isolated, but I don't have a huge problem with pruning either if it's seen as an issue, since I've long been an advocate of playing fair with those lists. The alumni thing falls under the same category as our shared cast lists I think, since even the differentiated heading doesn't clarify and where we've really only made a point of tracking when relevant people are from a specific school or what have you, whereas naming a sandwich after someone is both a bit more isolated, has less of an implication, and it's just not directly connected to either the Mupps or the celebs, so a free for all doesn't bother me there.). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:51, March 8, 2010 (UTC) :::Actually, looking at Stage Deli, I'd already taken out the referenced only names some time ago. So yeah, I'm fine with the pruning, and prunes too as long as they're pitted (or, since Grauman's is a little different, maybe simply have two lists; we don't do that as a rule, but it makes more sense for what amounts to a historical artifact than it does for shows, universities, etc.) -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:57, March 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think I'd rather have those all just be "Connections" lists -- like we saw today, if we get cute about what's a "Connections" list and what's an "Alumni" / "Footprints" list, then people aren't going to get the distinction. (For example: I didn't. :) ) I love the References and Connections stuff, but I think it only works if we really play fair. -- Danny (talk) 23:06, March 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::Like I said, that's fine with me (some pages, like Saturday Night Live, I've had to keep a close eye on for that very reason, but the ones you caught today just slipped through the cracks; Nate's too prolific!) And a couple others, like Sinatra, are cases where the page itself should have been recategorized but somehow never was (since I think for awhile we thought Sinatra covering "Bein' Green" counted, that and Jerry Juhl wanting him as a Muppet Show guest, but it really shouldn't). I'll do that now. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:14, March 8, 2010 (UTC) Fine with me too. I snuck in the fun one about Groucho in the lead article. :) -- ''Nate (talk) 23:32, March 8, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, lead-in text is different from connections, so as long as it doesn't become endless or distracting, that's a better way to handle it (see the fifth paragraph in Charlie McCarthy for an example, where it's a mixed list but serves a clear purpose in the article). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:37, March 8, 2010 (UTC)